I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! PowersT 02:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You removed my proposals for deletion for both upcoming Spielberg films. The template indicated, "To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." Since you did not do this in the edit summaries, do you mind explaining on the films' respective talk pages why these should not be deleted? There is very little existing information about these films as of late, as opposed to some other upcoming film articles. If your argument is not sufficient, I will promote these articles for deletion. --Erik 00:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article John Walker (producer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tellyaddict 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Pixar Planet, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Pixar Planet. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Finngalltalk 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to The Simpsons. Thank you for your helpful edit, but an edit summary is also helpful to other Wikipedia editors. --Ericdn (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please use appropriate edit summaries. Your continued failure to do so will be interpreted an intentional vandlaism. Bearian (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

--Concerning this file, I uploaded a new version taken from the NBC Universal website, but, in the end, I think the logo you uploaded looked better after the upload, so I reverted it. But, if you want to again revert it to the alternate logo, you are more than welcome to. You originated the file, and thus, I will leave the decision up to you. AriTotle (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently, it appears that you all have been interested in the various Disney discussions regarding the proper categorization of Disney animated films. There has been recent activity regarding the proper structure of the various Disney feature length film lists. Unfortunately the discussions regarding the lists / pages are taken place on a number of talk pages. Before we get further into a long discussion regarding the various structural issues with regards to List of Disney theatrical animated features, Template:Disney theatrical animated features, Walt Disney Animated Classics, Category:Disney animated features canon, List of Disney feature films‎ and what ever other lists are out there, I would suggest that we somehow combine the discussions (both past and present) into one place. This will allow easy review on single page for users interested in this matter. It will also allow future users an easy access to whatever rational is used to support the structure of the various lists (including keeping or merging certain lists.). I believe that in placing this discussion in one central location, it alleviates repetitive discussion, allows issues are not constantly revisited in different locations and hopefully sets the future standard in updating the various lists with the verifiable sources. I honestly do not know if there is Wikipedia policy on this, nor do I know what the proper way of creating such a place. But I do believe it would useful.

I have posted this suggestion on the all the User’s talk pages above and apologize if I have missed any person who may be interested in this matter. If you know of a user interested in this matter, please invite any that person to discuss these issues. .If I have included you and you have no interest in this matter, I sincerely apologize and please delete this message.

I wanted to let you know that your recent edit to American Idol has been undone. While I presume you're working in good faith, your table contains the same information as is already present in the article. If you could please explain why your table should be included, please provide an answer here or on the article's talk page. Thank you, and happy editing! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Update--I've started a dialogue on the article's talk page. Please present your reasoning for maintaining two redundant sets of tables there, to allow the editors to establish some consensus on how many times we should post the same things. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the starting/ending years of Dunkleman, Abdul and DioGuardi from the American Idol template again. Without the years it makes it appear the hosts and the judges have been with the show every season. If you still feel this way, you need to discuss it on the talk page before and gaining a consensus before making the change again. Aspects (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the order has been changed numerous times over the past month, could you please join the discussion at Template talk:American Idol#Judge order so we can get a working consensus to point to, to avoid future conflict with the order? Aspects (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not alter content in contradiction of references unless you can demonstrate good reason for doing so, as you recently did at Paranormal Activity (film). IMDB is considered a reliable source for film release dates. To overturn it you would need to provide a source that is deemed superior. Just changing it because you disagree is not an acceptable action. Manning (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Final warning. If you change referenced information again without a reliable source or a consensus agreement you will be blocked. Manning (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unnotable stunt coordinator. Filmography nothing but a copy/paste from IMDB. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Completely fails WP:N and WP:BIO; without coverage in third-party, reliable sources, also against WP:BLP

I have been following your edits at Kiss (band) and would just like to welcome you to Wikipedia. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. I hope you continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. J04n(talk page) 03:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So I assume you enjoyed it? I'm leaving to see the 9:30pm (CST) showing (like right now). It seems some critics are having issues with Burton's vision. Fortunately I take their opinion with a grain of salt. After all, I'm a Saw fan, and we know what they think of that since they can't get passed criticizing the "gore" part to enjoy the storyline.. so I just read their reviews to add to Wikipedia articles. LOL. So I guess you have some interest in the article? I'm thinking about working on for GA in the near future, if you're interested. If not, I understand, as it can be time consuming. —MikeAllen 02:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it has been sold out here most of the night.. —MikeAllen 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Just a quick note to remind you to please remind you to use the edit summary boxes. You made small changes to all the Star Trek movie pages but we have to manually check what change was made if you don't state it :)ῤerspeκὖlὖmin ænigmate( talk ) 20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would you remove the informative navbox for the elss informative one.. there is a reason it is the way it is, please stop changing it before it is considered vandalism. Your edit has been reverted by multiple editors already. If you think it should be changed, discuss it on the talk page there, a discussion about it has already started. This is why we have concensus on wikipedia. Alan - talk 02:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Redwall. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. I see from your Talk page that other Wikipedians have previously tried to encourage you to use Edit Summaries in line with Wikipedia standards, but to little or no avail. However, well done on actually using an Edit Summary once: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey&diff=prev&oldid=357302083Trafford09 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not create pages that do not, and will not meet the notability requirements for existence. The fact that someone reviewed the documentary does not make it notable, especially when the reviews themselves are from non-reputable sources. The documentary does not warrant a whole page to itself. If there is a reputable review, then add it to the franchise page. BIGNOLE (Contact me)

The article would require extensive coverage from third-party sources discussing everything from the making of the documentary to how they even put it all together. It isn't going to happen. That info is basically on the franchise page already, and it isn't that much. Documentaries of this nature rarely, if ever, become notable. There has already been a Nightmare documentary in the past (the one that accompanied the box set - that Nightmare Encyclopedia), and it wasn't that notable. You'll probably find some reviews on how well they did in covering the films, but nothing that is going to suggest that the documentary itself is notable. I only say this because I've gone through the same thing with Friday the 13th. The franchise page discusses the documentaries that were produced (both books and DVDs)--see Friday the 13th (franchise)#Documentaries--and none of them were notable in their own right. The problem stems primarily from the subject matter itself. It's nothing but a bunch of interviews from the cast and crew about the films they made. There's no substance to the article, because it wasn't like this was something 30 years in the making that they could never do. Nightmare has had multiple documentaries--both through books and videos--which means that this one isn't anything special in its own right. That is why I don't believe it will ever be notable enough for its own article. Build up what you can on the franchise page, and we'll see what's left when it's done. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to him. His bias opinions go against community consensus. There are more reviews out there and they DO show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That is rather rude of him to try to discourage someone from making a Wikipedia article about something which common sense would indicate it was notable. An official documentary about any notable series, is notable. DreamFocus08:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Miley Cyrus. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking through your edit history AussieLegend, I have to say I am amazed to find that you actually use edit summaries every single time. I've never seen anyone do that, ever. Do you post things like this everywhere, or just to people you don't like for some reason? It does seem rather rude and very unnecessary. DreamFocus08:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, hi, I left a message on the template's talk page about the template, might you read this! You have good edits, and it's not you, it's that the template must be entirely visible on one's computer monitor from left-to-right, without doing any side-scrolling. The admin SilkTork will take over with the new formatted manageable sub-templates! Please read the template talk page. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Template:Peter Morgan. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

In nearly 4 years that you have been on Wikipedia, you have been repeatedly warned, for not providing Edit summaries for most of your contributions.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. While you are certainly correct that Van Helsing is not part of the original series of Universal Monsters films, I think it deserves a place somewhere on the template. It is a Universal film and was made as a tribute to the old Universal series. Universal even released DVDs of the old films which explicitly stated them to be "the classic films that inspired Van Helsing". It would make most sense for it to be in a "Tributes" section, but then it would be all by itself and might look a little silly.--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Charles Dickens. Do you have a question or contention with edit summaries? You have been reminded many times on this talkpage. Your edit was helpful, but an edit summary is also helpful to other Wikipedia editors. -- Spanglej (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I added that because that was me under an IP address. My apologies if I am not supposed to do that, even if I was that IP user. If that's the case, it won't happen again. Reply back if you want. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:04 am, Today (UTC+1)

Nice of you to discuss it. It does seem odd. But my major gripe with you, as you'll have realised, is your hitherto refusal to supply Edit Summaries. Any reason why you think you're exempt from consensus? Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Template:Conan O'Brien. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Still not tempted to discuss this?Trafford09 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you make anything other than a minor edit to an article, it helps others if you fill in the edit summary. Edit summaries are visible in the page history, watchlists, and on Recent changes, so they help others users keep track of what's happening to a page. If you use section editing, the summary box is filled in with the section heading by default (in gray text), which you can follow with more detail. You also can put links to articles in the edit summary. Just put double brackets around [[the article title]] like you would normally. The summary is limited to 200 characters, so many people use common abbreviations, such as sp for correcting spelling mistakes.

Hey, glad to see someone else working on the L&O stuff. There was a task force of editors under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television banner at some point, but it seems to be inactive. Just wanted to run a thought regarding the by you. Seems to me there's two ways to link the game articles together and to connect them to the rest of the L&O articles.

One is to place a single link in the main franchise navbox pointing at the list in the franchise article, with a dedicated navbox for the games linking each of those articles together.

The second is to link all four games in the franchise navbox and place that on all the game articles, deleting the games-specific navbox as redundant.

I prefer the first, as the games, while certainly worthy of mention, are a relatively minor part of the franchise, and placing all the links directly into the franchise navbox begins to look like clutter and even seems a bit like undue weight.

I agree that we don't want to over-emphasize the video games (though they did have the awesomeness of the late Jerry Orbach), but as Law & Order branded items, they are part of the franchise. At the very least, we owe it to readers that may have seen them to mention them. Which is why I think the first of the two mentioned solutions is the best.

I also long felt the need to split Exiled from the personnel listed on the bottom of the franchise navbox; it felt out of place there. (That section was once labeled "universe", and I believe it contained links to the no-longer extant New York Ledger article and the rather trivia-filled Hudson University one. It was a poorly categorized mishmash.)

If the video games are to be individually mentioned, they ought to be in their own section, but that would push Exiled into the miscellaneous category again, which I don't want.

Lastly, I believe there were a few licensed novels that may bear mentioning, both in the franchise article and in the "Other media" section of the navbox. oknazevad (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

PS, I never considered this edit warring, just the WP:BRD cycle at work.

I see what you're saying, but the problem there is that navbox template is designed for a single series. So while it would be appropriate for any one of the individual series, for the navbox for the franchise as a whole, it might not work. Strange as it might sound, my model for the Law & Order franchise template is actually Template: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which is similar in that it is a multi-series property. That's one I've worked on before as well. oknazevad (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, CB. Good to talk. Always happy to start afresh. Nice to see you now supplying ESs. If you're clear about not wanting to forget them, you know you could always take advantage - as many of us do (myself included) - to avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, of selecting "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of your user preferences.

The other thing we registered users have access to is the Help:Minor edit flag, which you might find sometimes useful. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, and think we should go that way. Finding sources might be difficult considering the newness of the series, but as the rationales for the casting become better known, they definitely warrant inclusion. The bonus materials on the inevitable DVD set will be a treasure trove, but that'll be a while. While I'm going to be pretty laden at work this week (being a teacher at the end of the quarter means spending hours grading tests, quizzes and papers), drop me a line if there's a thought you have regarding it.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ϢereSpielChequers 22:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mhiji 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a little confused at what you are doing at the Star Trek template. Why was what changed? All I mainly know is that one link that I included was gone so I had to revert at the time being due to you probably removing other links. But what dd you mean in the edit summary? Jhenderson777 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Christopher Nolan has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you.-5- (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherlock Holmes (2009 film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yaksar(let's chat) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Miller (director) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Alan - talk 03:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Roy King until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Alan - talk 03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. –BMRR (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I undid you reversal at Template:Roman Polanski since you didn't leave any edit summary with a reason for your edit. Basically decade breakdown should be avoided if it's not absolutely necessary. I know that many other film director navboxes don't follow this, but that is just a bigger reason to start doing it correctly. Smetanahue (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ttonyb (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Piers Morgan Tonight guests until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:27 Club#Unsourced entries need to be removed. Please feel free to participate and provide any insight or opinion that you feel relates to the unsourced entries in the list.Sottolacqua(talk) 16:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you have been reverting recent improvements on the {{US Presidents}} template. I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why we are introducing these changes. One reason for changing the templates it to improve accessibility for visually impaired users using a screen reader. Whenever a screen reader encounters a dot, it calls out the word "dot". The material presents as a lot of tiny disjointed paragraphs rather than a list. With the new mark-up, the screen reader will announce that a list is coming, and then will proceed to read out the items on the list. Flatlist and application of the hlist class is about presenting the material as actual lists, which helps not just people with vision issues, but those viewing the site using phones and other non-traditional devices. Search engines also will read lists better.

The use of the dots is now deprecated, and have been since August. Each dot requires the application of a template, and templates are expensive, as they increase server load. There are limits as to how many templates can be placed on a page. Application of the latest method, using listclasses and bodyclasses to create the lists, results in a reduction in post-expand include size of 16% and a reduction in template argument size of 45% on the US Presidents template. This is a substantial improvement that will lead to quicker load times for pages and a better experience for our viewing audience.

The transition has not been trouble free; some kinks have had to be ironed out, and there may still be a ways to go. However, we have the templates displaying adequately in the two latest versions of the problematic Internet Explorer (IE8 and IE9), and we can't hold back development of Wikipedia for older, buggy browsers.

I am reverting your change to the US Presidents and Vice Presidents templates. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! First and foremost, I want to apologize for my admittedly undescriptive edit summary. With that being said, I moved the article to "Angélique Bouchard Collins" for two reasons: her name was spelled "Angélique" in Dark Shadows Resurrected, the companion book for the 1991 remake, and for consistency, as that was the spelling already used in the article. Is it possible that the spelling was changed for the 1991 series? Regardless, the official website for the new Dark Shadows movie spells it "Angelique", so I'm unsure of what to do. What do you think? Chris the Paleontologist(talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. MrX 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Howdy Cartoon Boy. I noticed that the Templates have stopped showing the numberings again. Any clues as to why this happens? I'm guessing it's just a glitch. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rita Ora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Euphoria Tour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

What "you" will add or not add is as inconsequential as what "you" think is notable, because others will see what is missing and attempt to add it and it will be never ending, the next live action portrayal will go there, the next video game voice will go there. You've been told, you've had it explained to you, and you've chosen to edit war over it anyway, so now you can have a warning for it. Remove the others barring Hamill if you want, but you will not continue to add names. John DiMaggio has voiced him in one animated film (and hey, I don't think Emerson should be there either, it was a compromise), Storch is not notable, do you know how hard it was to even find a source for that? Kevin Michael Richardson? You deem these notable based on your own opinion and that isn't how Wikipedia works and you've been here long enough to know that just like you know you discuss instead of just keep reverting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)